I think Pete & Paul were friends. Maybe not as close as Pete was to John, but you don't spend a good part of 2 years living and working with each other everyday without being friends. I have friends that can be real jerks, assh---s & losers from time to time. They are still my friends.

I want to see a "reunion" not because they were friends, but as a final added closure to Beatles history. I will go a step further. I want to see a new record too, with Paul, Ringo & Pete. An old time Hamburg style Rock & Roll song. An original or maybe just a remake of Chuck Berry's "Rock & Roll Music". Maybe ask Klauss to sit in for Stu on bass & ask Tony Sheridan to help out as well. A one off song wouldn't hurt the Fab Four's place in history anymore than having Pete & Stu in the band at the beginning did.

That's a bit much no?

Tony Sheridan!?

As fun as it might be for the sake of nostalgia, I think all that is way too much.

I mean why stop there. Rod Davis and Pete Shotton are still with us, have Paul bring them and the current Quarrymen, which includes Rod and Len Garry and have a Quarrymen reunion fette in the middle of a giant stadium show with 75,000 fans expecting rock music?

Oh I'd be all for it, but I'd be pretty sure the Quarrymen would be met with the same reaction Ravi Shankar was met with during George's Dark Horse tour.

Nostalgia is great and if their paths ever cross with Pete on the drums at a Paul McCartney concert it would be neat for a one-time deal, but I think you are going a bit overboard by making it into a major event complete with a Hamburg style album.

As far as closure? I don't think closure really is necessary in terms of this sort of thing. Pete is remembered fine, now if he is hurting for cash or something like that, then I can see Paul reaching out to him, whether by choice or guiltied into it. There isn't a hatchet to be buried, it's a chapter in their lives that doesn't need to be revisited.

For both of them, that time is just one of those people and things that went before (to steal a line from In My Life) and yes, no matter how close you were for a two year period, time has a way of causing friends to no longer be that, no matter how much or little animosity may have gone into the breaking of the original friendship or partnership.

I don't know, Bobber..but he can't be THAT bad...The Beatles would have dumped him much sooner...by the way, what was that book named that corrected all the mistakes written of the band in the early 60s?

I think you can look at Pete Best's situation from two different points of view.

One: Pete Best could've had the greatest job in the world, but got dumped for no apparant reason and had to spend the rest of his life as the guy who's name is almost a synonym of the word misfortune. So he got royally screwed.

Two: Pete Best got sacked because for some reason, the people in charge thought that he wasn't the right guy for the job. It just wasn't meant to be. So he ended up just being a guy who played in a local rock 'n' roll band, just like thousands of his peers. The difference is that 99,99% of all those others guys only have a few photos, a handful of anecdotes and maybe an obscure record or two to remind them of their old bands, while Best ended up being a fairly wealthy guy, a minor celebrity and somewhat of a mythical cult hero who's playing is to this day being heard by millions. Which isn't such a bad reward for two years of work that he did 50 years ago.

Beatlesattheirbest I tried contacting you on kickstarter! I messages you the other day about the movie and how I would like to help !! This is shaun right??!!

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but last week was a bit hectic. I share your enthusiasm for The Beatles and desire to see the REAL truth about the early years of the group come out. The Beatles were 1960-1970, John, Paul, George, Stu, Pete & Ringo. Most fans don't know about Best & Sutcliffe. A lot of the ones who do know about them don't know the real truth. They think they do, but they don't. Others feel they have to attack or diminish Best & Sutcliffe out of loyalty to John, Paul, George & Ringo and the 1962-1970 Beatles version of history. I like all six former Beatles. I am not into comparing Best & Starr or even judging whether McCartney needs to apologize to Pete. I am simply seeking to see the truth come out. The real truth, not some McCartney, Harrison & Starr self serving spin. Like John Lennon said, Gimme Some Truth! And I am seeking a happy ending to The Beatles history that will serve as a bookend to the beginning of Beatles history.

As for my film, it is not big budget. It is no budget. I made it by accident while I was researching a different film about the influence of The Beatles on Michael Jackson. The Beatles at their Best was made using information anyone can find on the internet. It's probably more factually based than most Beatles films and tells the story from a different perspective. I've been paying money to enter it in festivals with mixed results. I am looking for new ways to push this subject into the public's present consciousness. I made the film to promote an issue. Like you, I too feel that the events that took place during the formation of The Beatles and their first 2 years have not been properly told. This important time Rock & Roll history has not been properly reported. Pete Best's (and Stu Sutcliffe's) significant contribution to helping The Beatles become the most unbelievable phenomenon in entertainment history has not been told. So, that's what I am trying to do. That's why I made a film. That's why I give interviews when asked. That's why I post on Beatles Boards. That's why I am emailing you back right now.

I would like to not only see a reunion, but also a new record with McCartney, Best & Starr (single or album) doing it old time Hamburg style! This summer is the 50th anniversary of Pete's sacking and Ringo joining the group. Let's both continue to do what we can to bring attention to this issue.

I think you can look at Pete Best's situation from two different points of view.

One: Pete Best could've had the greatest job in the world, but got dumped for no apparant reason and had to spend the rest of his life as the guy who's name is almost a synonym of the word misfortune. So he got royally screwed.

Two: Pete Best got sacked because for some reason, the people in charge thought that he wasn't the right guy for the job. It just wasn't meant to be. So he ended up just being a guy who played in a local rock 'n' roll band, just like thousands of his peers. The difference is that 99,99% of all those others guys only have a few photos, a handful of anecdotes and maybe an obscure record or two to remind them of their old bands, while Best ended up being a fairly wealthy guy, a minor celebrity and somewhat of a mythical cult hero who's playing is to this day being heard by millions. Which isn't such a bad reward for two years of work that he did 50 years ago.

I go more with #2. But for me that is not the issue. The issue is that the first 2-3 years that led up to the Fab Four as the world knows it has not properly been told. The Beatles Anthology sure didn't tell it right. I would simply like to see a more acurate version of this important part of Rock & Roll history be told.

A "reunion" would be nice though. I think it would be a good thing for all concerned. A new single with Paul, Ringo & Pete would be even better!

I go more with #2. But for me that is not the issue. The issue is that the first 2-3 years that led up to the Fab Four as the world knows it has not properly been told. The Beatles Anthology sure didn't tell it right. I would simply like to see a more acurate version of this important part of Rock & Roll history be told.

What makes you think you know the acurate version? I'm just curious because I get slammed for my opinions based on books I read, articles, and interviews. How did you collect your data? Were you there?

I brought this up elsewhere, and a poster said a few things that made sense:

-The time to do this has long since passed. He didn't say it, but I'm guessing during John Lennon's lifetime, or soon after his murder.

-Anything more than a friendly photo op backstage at a gig, charity function or whatever will be seen as been phony and fake on the part of Paul and/or Ringo and a money grab for Pete. You as a Pete Best fan may get some satisfaction and closure from it, but to the masses, the former is exactly how it will be perceived.

I'll go on to add that thanks to the information and digital age, and the sheer amount if Beatle fans that love all the behind the scences things that are part of Beatle history, there is no way Pete Best is going to go back to being an obscure part of rock history or a punchline (see Pipp, Wally and Gehrig, Lou). He's done quite well for himself and as I said, it's not like he is going to fade into obscurity.

What makes you think you know the acurate version? I'm just curious because I get slammed for my opinions based on books I read, articles, and interviews. How did you collect your data? Were you there?

No, I was not there. I wasn't on the moon either but I know that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, Jr were.